IG Report. Durham .....”another country heard from”

a reply to: tanstaafl

No thanks. If I've learned anything over the past 3+ years it's that any document released by the government is just vague enough that you can get what you want out of it regardless of your bias.

It's pointless, it's a document meant to pull people one way or the other depending on their bias. They know how to ride that fine line between both parties so that people continue grasping straws.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

And plenty of stuff to give the liberals their talking points as well.

Welcome to the show. It won't change anytime soon.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
No thanks. If I've learned anything over the past 3+ years it's that any document released by the government is just vague enough that you can get what you want out of it regardless of your bias.

So shut your pie hole. Seriously. You're trying to have it both ways. Take that # somewhere else.

It's pointless, it's a document meant to pull people one way or the other depending on their bias. They know how to ride that fine line between both parties so that people continue grasping straws.

Actually, in this case, you are woefully mistaken... but since you won't read it... see above.

originally posted by: fringeofthefringe
Good point wardaddy.
John Durham is our, fed up Americans, last hope.
How long until we get the "John Durham Report" ?
It can't come soon enough.
These anti-American fake constitutionalists are going to pretend that the IG report proves their point.
We need Barr and Durham to set the record straight and hold the resistance accountable.
I still have faith that justice will prevail.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
So since the IG report was a dud we're moving the goalposts to the Durham report? I thought so. I've been saying it for years, every bombshell is a dud until the next bombshell date is set. 😂

As you said, a "report".

The OIG can't prosecute or subpoena anyone. And as I understand it, only looks into the DOJ and not other agencies.

Horowitz got a partial picture, which prompted Durham's investigation. A criminal investigation. Which gives Durham full power to investigate all agencies and foreign players.

Given that, I wouldn't call this report a dud, since it never had teeth to begin with.

Durham and Barr strike me as super "by the book" types. So I don't think they'd open a criminal investigation unless they saw something that was actually worth the professional capital.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Wardaddy454

And plenty of stuff to give the liberals their talking points as well.

Welcome to the show. It won't change anytime soon.

Except there was obviously something worth opening a criminal investigation over. The show you refer to is the Impeachment hearings.

The outline I got earlier about the articles of impeachment was that its over Trump essentially saying "see you in court".

a reply to: tanstaafl

I've already read the responses from both camps on here and, of course, neither is budging. Why? Because the document has seemingly contradictory information that confirms both sides' bias in one way or another.

It has happened with every "bombshell" so far, documents that ride that partisan line in order to draw out the bickering and anger that much longer.

My suspicions have been confirmed literally every single time a "bombshell" was supposed to drop so far. Every time. They go literally nowhere except to ther next "bombshell", but you'd be hard pressed to convince either side that it hurt their cause.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

And liberals would say the same thing about the Russian collusion case, "there was obviously something worth opening a case over or they wouldn't have".

See what i'm saying? Constant back and forth, no end in sight. All based around government investigations neatly packaged and handed to the people on a silver platter.

Obama Admin crooks escaped being interviewed by I.G. Horowitz for his FISA-abuse report.

In his report, Horowitz said Comey was one of a number of former FBI employees who “chose not to request that their security clearances be reinstated for their [inspector general] interviews."

And “therefore, we were unable to provide classified information or documents to them during their interviews to develop their testimony, or to assist their recollections of relevant events.”

BUT ON THE OTHER HAND...

“Durham is not limited. He can talk to other agencies. He can compel people to testify,” Barr said.

“One of the problems in the IG’s investigation, is that Comey refused to sign back up for his security clearance and therefore couldn't be questioned about classified matters.

So, someone like Durham can compel his testimony, he can talk to a whole range of people, private parties, foreign governments, and so forth.”

SOURCE: www.washingtonexaminer.com...

Go Get'em Mr. Durham!

FYI: Wed 12/11/2019 - DOJ Michael Horowitz answers questions about his FISA-abuse report, from the Senate Judiciary Committee, headed by Senator Lindsey Graham. Will be streamed live at 10:00am Eastern, on C-SPAN 3.

Link to C-Span Channel 3: www.c-span.org.../justice-department-ig-testifies-fisa-abuse-allegations

C-span Channel 3 Program listing: www.c-span.org...

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: tanstaafl

I've already read the responses from both camps on here and, of course, neither is budging. Why? Because the document has seemingly contradictory information that confirms both sides' bias in one way or another.

It is only contradictory if you either don't know how to read, or don't have an understanding of the limitations of the OIG - or a combination of the two.

It has happened with every "bombshell" so far, documents that ride that partisan line in order to draw out the bickering and anger that much longer.

The radical left MSM demwits are the only ones proclaiming the 'bombshells' that turn out 12 to 36 hours later to be nothing at all, or even exculpatory.

a reply to: tanstaafl

The radical left MSM demwits are the only ones proclaiming the 'bombshells' that turn out 12 to 36 hours later to be nothing at all, or even exculpatory.

Now I know for a fact you are being dishonest. There's a particular member in here right now today who "bombshells" every week or two. Check out their thread history.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Now I know for a fact you are being dishonest. There's a particular member in here right now today who "bombshells" every week or two. Check out their thread history.

I'm not talking about some obscure (to most) private conspiracy forum, I'm talking about MSM.

But sure - linky to the member who 'bombshells' every week or two... maybe I've missed them...

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

You started off with this ...

So since the IG report was a dud we're moving the goalposts to the Durham report?

Move on to this ....

The final nail in the coffin

Now you’re here....

bombshell

Who do you think is moving the goalposts ?

a reply to: Fallingdown

How is that moving the goalposts? They are all talking about the same thing, the supposed "bombshell IG report that would be the final nail in the coffin".

Not sure what in the world you think is "moving the goalposts" about that.

a reply to: tanstaafl

You think ATS is in a vacuum? ATS gets its talking points from the same places every other right wing forum gets their talking points.

The user I'm speaking of is the one posting quotes from links 6 or 7 posts above this one. Check out their thread history, bombshell after bombshell.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
The user I'm speaking of is the one posting quotes from links 6 or 7 posts above this one. Check out their thread history, bombshell after bombshell.

That is one person, with a tiny viewership.

Not even remotely similar to talking heads on CNN, MSNBC, CMS, ABC, etc etc all in lock-step calling bombshell after bombshell, all fizzling after a few hours.

If you can't see the difference, then

Amazingly, small (but important?) changes were made to I.G. Horowitz's FISA-abuse report today...2 days after it was published.

Apparently, former Attorney General Jeff Sessions set a "Leak Trap" that today's IG Report modifications reveal, according to:

theconservativetreehouse.com...

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: Fallingdown

How is that moving the goalposts? They are all talking about the same thing, the supposed "bombshell IG report that would be the final nail in the coffin".

Not sure what in the world you think is "moving the goalposts" about that.

Here’s what you said on page 1 .

So since the IG report was a dud we're moving the goalposts to the Durham report?

How do you move the goalpost to an investigation that was already going on ?

Are you trying to tell me nobody knew of the Durham investigation ?

Maybe you’re trying to tell me that an investigator with the power to assemble a grand jury was trivial to everyone concerned ?

Are you saying everyone on the right had all of their confidence on a administrative review of the FISA procedure.

Moving the goalposts to the Durham investigation makes absolutely no sense .

A better phrase you could’ve used was strike one .

a reply to: tanstaafl

"But sure - linky to the member who 'bombshells' every week or two... maybe I've missed them..."

I was simply granting your request. Who do you think that member gets their "bombshells" from? The same place every other Trump sycophant gets their information from most likely.

The MSM owns people's minds. They point, you guys look. Mind control 101.

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Who do you think that member gets their "bombshells" from?

What member?